From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Don't report new bugs for Rmail?? Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:14:37 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20090131104403.GQ4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20090131211929.GT4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> <20090131222401.GU4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1233461756 31964 80.91.229.12 (1 Feb 2009 04:15:56 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 04:15:56 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Don Armstrong Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 01 05:17:10 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LTTle-0007Dh-0Z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:17:10 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48375 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LTTkL-0006pQ-6y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:15:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LTTjA-0006Uu-QV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:14:36 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LTTjA-0006Ui-6H for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:14:36 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=54552 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LTTjA-0006Uf-23 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:14:36 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il ([84.95.2.1]:52009) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LTTj9-0003z2-NJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:14:35 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KED00M00D2L6Y00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:14:55 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.109.18]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KED007YPD4UBIB0@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Sun, 01 Feb 2009 06:14:55 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <20090131222401.GU4175@volo.donarmstrong.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by monty-python.gnu.org: Solaris 9.1 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:108493 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:24:01 -0800 > From: Don Armstrong > > > It's IMO inconsistency to allow bugs be filed against a package that > > doesn't exist. > > The alternative is rejecting them entirely, which I think is the wrong > decision. All I care about is that sentence asking not to submit more bug reports. Can we please remove or rephrase that?